Patrick "Litmus" Leahy

In the 1990s, Sen. Pat Leahy criticized litmus tests on judicial nominees:

Leahy: "I would like to believe ... that no senator is imposing an ideological litmus test on judicial nominations." (Sen. Patrick Leahy, Congressional Record, 7/10/97, p. S7207)

Leahy: "Partisan and narrow ideological efforts to impose political litmus tests on judicial nominees and to shut down the judiciary must stop." (Sen. Patrick Leahy, Congressional Record, 3/2/98, p. S1199)

Leahy: "[Y]ou cannot have a small clique decide they want to know exactly how judges are going to rule before they go on the bench, or they're not going to confirm them." (PBS' "The NewsHour," 10/14/99)

Contrast these statements with what Leahy said this morning on VPR. He no longer is against litmus tests for judicial nominees. In fact, he embraces them.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Top Judiciary Committee Democrat Patrick Leahy of Vermont said he will vote against Supreme Court nominee John Roberts if the judge seems likely to pursue an "activist" philosophy. Another Democrat said Roberts assured him he is no ideologue.

In an interview broadcast Tuesday on Vermont Public Radio's "Switchboard" program, Leahy said he would vote against the appeals court judge if it seemed as if he would pursue an activist agenda on the court. In selecting Roberts, President Bush emphasized that he was looking for someone who would not legislate from the bench.

Leahy said he's worried that Roberts might try to unravel matters that should be settled law.

Denouncing conservatives on the current court, the Vermont senator said in the interview: "They have struck down parts of the Violence Against Women Act, environmental acts, child safety legislation."

"They've knocked down all these, basically writing the law themselves," Leahy added. "I want to find out if he's going to be as active as this — as people like Justice (Antonin) Scalia and Justice (Clarence) Thomas, who have almost willy-nilly overruled things."

Leahy also said any Supreme Court nominee who doesn't agree that Roe v. Wade is established legal precedent would have difficulty getting confirmed.

"Just as you would not have a justice nominee who said, `Well I wouldn't consider Brown vs. Board of Education settled law,' I don't see how they could get confirmed," Leahy said. "I don't see how somebody who said that they didn't consider Roe vs. Wade settled law ... I don't see how they get confirmed."

Leahy, like the good liberal that he is, makes absolutely no sense.

He condemns activist judges while promoting them.

He decries legislating from the bench while demanding that such acts be upheld.

I say this with all due respect--What a complete and utter fool!

Simply put, Leahy will not vote for Roberts' confirmation unless he promises to rule in a manner that casts no doubt whatsoever on the legitimacy of the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling.

From U.S. Newswire:

Today, Fr. Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life, responded to Senator Patrick Leahy, who indicated that he would vote against Judge Roberts should he not voice support for Roe. "Senator Leahy's comments show a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the Constitution and a Supreme Court Justice."

On a Vermont radio program, Sen. Leahy became the first Democrat to say outright that he would have a Roe litmus test for Judge Roberts. His comments confirm much of what Roberts' supporters had expected, that Senate Democrats could not stop a nominee with such impeccable credentials by evaluating his entire record.

"What Senator Leahy said in effect is that Supreme Court precedent has become part of the Constitution. While precedent certainly has an important role, Supreme Court Justices must be able to restore the Constitution when they find that a previous decision has ignored its text and intent. Either Senator Leahy is suggesting that in the wake of Dred Scott he would have opposed nominees who thought that it was wrongly decided, or he is not really concerned with a judge's willingness to adhere to precedent and is simply trying to appease radical special interest groups that oppose even the ban on partial-birth abortion. I would like Senator Leahy to say which of these is the case."

Fr. Pavone continued, "It is more than a little troubling that the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee wants to ensure that a Supreme Court nominee swears allegiance to a decision that has been criticized repeatedly by people on both side of the abortion issue as having no grounding in the Constitution. I hope that he is the only Senator who thinks that seven Supreme Court Justices have the right to unilaterally amend the Constitution and that there is nothing subsequent Courts can do to restore the Constitution."

Priests for Life will conduct a special educational effort in the next two months on the Roe vs. Wade decision to educate the public that this decision legalized abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy. "No poll has ever shown the American public supporting such an extreme policy," Fr. Pavone concluded.

Fr. Pavone's press release clearly illustrates that Leahy is frighteningly irrational.

Again, with all due respect, Leahy is a blathering idiot.

John Roberts' confirmation hearing promises to be a total sham. Leahy already knows he will oppose President Bush's nominee and trash him in every imaginable way.

Why do this to such a good, qualified nominee?

He and many Dems are held hostage by the fringe Left. They have no choice but to carry water for them, because the radical liberals run the Democratic Party.

The party is completely out of the mainstream.

A new USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll, taken Friday through Sunday, finds that the overwhelming majority of Americans want John Roberts to be confirmed.

The Question:

As you may know, John Roberts is the person nominated to serve on the Supreme Court. Would you like to see the Senate vote in favor of Roberts serving on the Supreme Court, or not?

The Results:

59% Yes, vote in favor

22% No, would not

19% No opinion

I don't trust polls.

However, the numbers are so dramatic that the results should cause Leahy, his Dem colleagues, the liberal media, George Soros, NARAL, and assorted radical Leftist groups to step back and reflect on how terribly out of touch they are with America.